Article Source: msnbc.com
from:msnbc.comResponding to a challenge from President Barack Obama, House Republican leaders are presenting a roster of cuts over the next five years.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Biden attacks Romney tenure as venture capitalistBill Clinton to U.S., Europe: quit bickering over spendingObama raises $44 million for campaign, Dems in MayAmericans split on Obama's gay marriage decisionObama walks fine line in bashing Romney, courting Wall StreetFlorida governor takes aim at firms with ties to Cuba, SyriaNo boost for Obama from gay marriage decisionPaul hopes to influence Republican agenda at conventionNo boost for Obama from gay marriage decisionEx-Senator Edwards didn't know of payments, confidante testifies
Leave a Comment:
Good for the GOP!!!
I'm glad to see them working to better their country.
"Eliminating retirement benefits for federal workers who retire before age 62 to save perhaps $267 million a year."
I hope that they are including ex members of Congress as well.
You know I was thinking exactly the same thing !!!! Every pension cut for federal workers should be felt by Congress as well. About time.
And finally, the Republicans come up with something, anything to help !!!!!! About damn time they did something besides $itch and moan!!!!!
But you noticed that they did NOTHING to cut their OWN overpaid salaries or any of their benefits. God forbid they would consider anything like that......or any of THEIR outrageous extraneous GOP committee budgets, etc. Always penalize everyone else but NEVER take away any of their own perks. Wonder how they determined which programs they were going to cut? Make sure these programs don't include any that they have secured funding for their own vote getting? Remember that 40% of the pork was for the GOP, including the highest individual pork plugs.
anti trust, you are correct, the Senate should give back their raise, contribute to their own healthcare, tell Pelosi to walk home. Let's also remember 60% of the pork was democratic. Also Obama and his team have been paying back campaign contributors at an alarming rate which has put us in a hole. I do think they need to get a little more agressive and cut out all of the pork and earmarks moved forward in the last spending bills. Time to tighten our belts!!!
So federal employees can retire before 62 on a cushy pension and spend work time doing union stuff?
For all the crap people are giving the UAW, I think Federal employee labor unions are just as overpaid and self-entitled.
Problem is, while ridiculous wage demands crippling a car company sucks bad, wait and see how bad overpaying federal employees will kill our economy.
I think every federal employee should earn the same amount of money as their private sector counterparts who do the same work with the same credentials.
But remember, between the two houses the ratio of representation is about 60/40 in both chambers. Yet the actual $'s in pork shows that the top receivers were Republican.
Carl, just like many in the private sector, retirement in the government comes usually after 25-30 years of service, not according to any set age of 62 or higher. If someone begins working for the government at 18, yes, they CAN retire at 48. The military is a good example of that. Their government retirement is based on their years of service and the amount they earned during that service, just like SS is based on what you have paid into the system over the years. IF a government employee has also paid into SS through private employment, then they become eligible for SS as well at age 62 (early retirement with reduced benefit), 65/67 full retirement (depending on year of birth), or 70 (delayed claim with higher monthly benefit.)
Note my post below that is from a 2007 CRS Report for Congress that outlines the current federal employee/Congressional retirement system.
Carl W,
Unfortunately, your advice regarding the pay of Federal Civil Servants is mis-guided. Civil Servants are typically paid LESS than the equivalent position in private service.
This is the brunt of the problem with lobbying the government. It is difficult to stop people leaving the government to seek a higher-paying alternative doing essentially the same work, but on the other side of the fence...
The Federal Civil Servant Unions tend to emphasize work rules and tenure rather than pay. One of the few perks working for "The Man" is having stability in your profession.
When I graduated with my Masters in Engineering, the pay I was offered by the Civil Service to work on a defense-related project was LESS than I made prior to earning my degree!
Saving $833 million a year by eliminating federally funded transportation "enhancements" like landscaping, preservation of historic facilities, and pedestrian and bike facilities.
Yes, let's let our national monuments, such as veterans' memorials, go to the dogs to save a buck. Is this all the GOP has to offer? How about selling off Bush's and Chenney's assets to recover some of the stolen Haliburton funds that the taxpayers doled out!
I am very happy that we now, finally, have leadership that proposes spending tax revenues on the American people and our country.
Proposing less than $5 billion a year in cuts is not worth discussing. And cuts in bike and pedestrian facility funding, and safe routes to schools shows just how far away the GOP is from dealing with America's real problems. They will have to be much bolder in their recommendations, more principaled in their thinking and more current in their thinking if they ever want to win my support again.
I feel the same way, but they can always add the projects back in when we're not so far in debt.
Let's just give the GOP credit that they've finally done something.
Baby steps znac, baby steps.
Also most of that funding is based on MATCHING funds.....if the state or local government which has requested the funding can't put together the matching funds required, the money sits there in the budget UNSPENT, until the projects can move forward. So I guess cutting it really isn't helping the expenditures is it?
znac,
I agree, although every buck counts. tThis just goes to show that the GOP, if they had won in November, had NO plan to do anything but the status quo.
Great job GOP: Now lets get rid of Tax cuts for the Rich. Congress can pay for their own Health Care until all Americans are covered. Stop funding the war in Iraq. Start closing some military bases around the world and all in Arab countries. No tax breaks for Agra. Business or the Oil Co. Tax Churches that want to be involved in Politics. Do away with all lobbyist. Fix Campaign finance to be funded only be government dollars then you will not be swayed by corporate America. If you do some of this the voters just forgive you for the past. If not Oh well.
Absolutely correct wwaugh, but you should not be posting comments to websites when your asleep and dreaming. Great dream though. I wish they would...
Time will tell. Vote Dem in 2010 and these may be reality. Otherwise . . . .
Perhaps the Republicans have decided to rejoin us. That would be a good thing.
PDeuth that would be great--but, I don't think so. This is the same kind of stunt the GOP pulled when they came up with the Republican version of the budget. They called a press conference, made a big deal about it, and then presented the covers of a booklet with no numbers in it! Same old GOP with the same stale old ideas that go back well before the Great Depression in 1929. Personnally, if the GOP came out to a press conference and said they read about and understood Keynesian economics and that Bradley Friedmans economic theories ( that "Trickle down" economics is based on) were absolutley wrong--I would fall over and have a heart attack or stroke.
FINALLY!!! Somebody is making at least some sense. Obama himself has said that the spending must stop, but he leaves it up to congress to figure out how. Can anyone name one idea that he's had that he didn't pass off onto someone else to figure out? The republicans tell him that there are things that could be cut, and instead of giving ideas, he just hands it back and tells the republicans to figure it out. What kind of leader is that? That is a leader that doesn't want to get his hands dirty. If spending cuts get passed that people don't like, he can still point the finger at someone else. If company sponsored health benefits get taxed, he can pass it off on congress. We're spending in record amounts, but it's still all Bush' fault… don't like the cuts? Blame the republicans. Funny how the republicans get the blame on both sides of that one. Obama needs to stop the campaigning and the finger pointing and start behaving like the leader of the free world. Step up and make the hard decisions!
I struggle with the republicans, and I lean independent, but I do not like Obama. He's shady and dishonest. He flip-flops with the best of them, and quite frankly, he's just more of the same old crap… let's borrow and spend our way out of debt.
I'm glad to see that someone finally stepped up and said lets cut the crap and stop spending our money on things we shouldn't be spending it on during hard economic times. It really looks like all of our politicians have had their heads in the sand about what it means to be in the economic state that we're in. When you have insurmountable debt and deficit, YOU STOP SPENDING! You start cutting. Some of the cuts will hurt, but it is what needs to be done. Instead, we're borrowing record amounts of money and spending it like it will never run out. I'm glad to see someone finally stepped up to the plate.
I thought Cheney was a poor candidate, but I actually liked his idea that we suspend all spending, go through everything line-by-line and then only start spending when we come upon things that are necessary. Ask any business, household or other entity that is facing an economic crisis. That is how you get the job done. Instead, we keep spending like we were and are adding more and more to the bill.
Our government is not there to provide hand-outs. They are there to provide military protection.
So Cheney wanted to suspend spending, go through line by line and only start spending when we come upon things that are necessary.....how did that work out?
Well, considering it's Congress job to handle how the money of the country is spent or saved (the power of the purse), the duty of finding what to cut or what to promote in a budget is kinda in their job description. That is the whole point of them voting on to either accept it or to send it back to the president for further revision OR to offer their own solutions as to a better use of the funds coming in each year.
So far, Republicans have just been grandstanding in their opposition to the budget. They may be in the minority, but that doesn't mean they can't do something. Today, they finally decided to show something other than a two page document titled "Republican's Budget 2009."
By the way, it's not up to the president to oversea what Congress does or doesn't do. Or to lead them by the hand on everything--that's an even worse leader. So it's not "passing the buck" when he tells them to find things to cut if they have a problem with his budget. It's called respecting the boundaries of power established by the Constitution and letting the members of Congress DO THEIR JOBS.
And the Repugs aren't shady or dishonest? God, where have you been for the past 50 years? Remember it IS the job of the Congress, not the president to determine how and where money will be spent. Read the Constitution and the duties of the two branches of government. Guess you don't have a government job, or are in any way affected by money from the government. We've tried the "suspend all spending" before.....when Congress failed to pass budgets and the Government had to shut down because there was no money to pay employees.
WE THE PEOPLE are the ones who over the decades have ASKED our leaders to give us more and more handouts. The government is NOT there just to provide military protection. Againl, go back and read the Constitution and the role of each branch of the federal government.
I'm in business. I know what it takes to keep the doors open. I also know that to stay in business you have to spend money to make the money. The first mistake many businesses make is to eliminate all advertising in tough times. In fact though, that is one of the LAST cuts they should make.
The repugs are a little late stepping to the plate and have only done so BECAUSE the POTUS challenged them to do so AFTER HE directed all government agencies to start to cut their budgets. You didn't see a single proposal in the Rupugs' plan to cut anything out of the Congressional budget EXCEPT for "a move to abolish the $4 million budget of a House panel on global warming", something they don't feel we need because there is "no such thing as global warming." That is a drop in the bucket of their wasteful spending in every House and Senate committee, sub-committee, special panels, etc. How many staff could be eliminated from the Congressional offices IF they didn't keep creating all of these special panels, etc. with huge budgets? Haven't seen ANY of our Congressional leaders on either side of the aisle actually fight to stop creation of those. And all of these "junkets" that they are constantly taking????? And they criticize the president for going out and meeting with the citizens to hear their views? The only time our Congressional leaders ever show up back home is when they want to plea for more money for their campaigns. They don't actually listen to us.
How does "$72 million a year in cuts to the Agriculture Department's Market Access Program that promotes the sale of brand name products overseas" help the US? We do a fine job bringing in all the crap from China that seems to somehow get in this Country unregulated and yet how much are we shipping out of this Country and in to other Countries? If the Republicans want to get their foot in the door and be a viable political party, then start with creating AMERICAN jobs for Americans and not the trickle down party line that always seems to be the Republican party's mantra.
Del Monte and Kellogs can pay for their own marketing programs for a while.
They already do Lu. The Ag Dept program is like Dept. of Commerce international programs. They attend international conferences, trade shows, etc. to promote the US exports in general, not just "name brand." I get notices of these events all the time from the Commerce Dept. office in Puerto Rico because of the publication I do that is a NON-POLITICAL, Positive, community calendar publication. They host various educational seminars and invite US businesses to participate in them to promote their businesses and products to markets worldwide.
The proposal isn't to cut out the entire program. It says explicitly, "cuts to the Agriculture Department's Market Access Program that promotes the sale of brand name products overseas"
So I think it's safe to assume that the program will still be in place, but the brand name products will not be promoted (ie. commercial) while US exports will (ie. straight from the farm) still be promoted.
I don't think we should be paying pensions period to these politicans. Their paychecks, perks, medical benefits, expense accounts, per deims, paid holidays, travel expenses, entertainment expenses, pork kickbacks, lobbying kickbacks are more than any other person in this country, including top CEO's. VP Bidden gets all these perks plus a six figure salary and is collecting 6 grand a month to boot from SS???? Let them open their own IRAs like working people have had to do. My pension was stolen by a greedy employer and the governments answer was "it would cost them more to prosecute him, than it was worth" so four of us workers lost $100,000 each to this greedy man. Granted not much to a government who spends trillions a year, but my life's work, so now I am on SS retirement and working part time to subsidize myself and stay off welfare (which is another system ran into the ground in this country). Stood in line at the grocery store for over 45 minutes while a 20 year old with 3 kids checked out a basket full of groceries with "wick" coupons. I live in a building where five men under the age of 50 are either using food cards or getting SSI or SSD checks or both. The only disability I can see in any of them is all the booze and drugs they consume while the government is using SS funds to pay their rent, utilities, DUI fines, booze bills and drug consumptions, but some quack doctor signed them off for one type of disability or other so they have lived on the system for years, and oh yea, they work under the table when they need booze/drug money between checks. Washington needs to start cleaning up SS and Medicare, they need to quit raising their own paychecks, perks and benefits. Clinton increased the Presidental salary just before leaving office so his Presidential pension would be greater, good thinking Bill !! Someone had to pay for that N.Y.City mansion so Hillary could run for senator. And I am sure the Bushes are enjoying their new million dollar plus home in Texas, compliments of the taxpayer paid pension they get. No wonder Bush called Clinton his brother. Politicans have become so greedy and corrupt over the years it is outrageous and yet their only answer is not to clean out Washington's closets, but to borrow, spend, tax, tax, tax.
Bush most certainly could have rolled back the Presidential salary increase if he wanted to....but he didn't, did he??
Biden is not collecting SSI. Cheney is 68, why didn't you mention him??
The Stock Market is white collar gambling. You don't put money in there that you can't afford to lose.
WIC is Women, Infant, and Children. 20 year old with 3 kids? Yes, wouldn't it be nice if someone taught her the value of birth control, but the far-right probably protested to have the program removed from her school.
They want every child to be born, but they don't want to feed or care for them when they're alive...you can take that issue up with the far-right.
Biden isn't collecting SSI he is working. WOW!!!! You sound a little angry and lopsided this morning. The Republicans have give plans to make some cuts, we need to make some cuts, those of us working out here can't afford the porch bums anymore.
actually, Biden IS collecting his Social Security. But he has to pay taxes on ALL income over the $13K+ limit of the 2008 tax year. This year the limit is just over $14K. What I couldn't find in any of the searches on the subject was whether the IRS was applying the "$1 for every $2 over the limit deduction for under full retirement age" or "$1 for every $3 over the limit deduction for full retirement age." That means that they deduct from your SS payment that ratio for earnings over the "limit."
Here's the link for the info: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_621292.html
Note, he is NOT collecting SSI, he's collecting SS. There is a difference. Not sure where you got the $6K/month figure from though. The linked article says he began collecting last year, but that he became eligible for FULL RETIREMENT when he turned 66 in November (his total SS benefit was just over $6K for 2008 according to his tax filing.) If he did not file until November for his first claims, then he would NOT get his first check until at least December or January. I know.....my birthdate is 11/15 and I did NOT receive my first check until the following January when I filed just before my birthday at age 62. I don't get the "full retirement" benefits for another year. That does not raise my monthly benefits though, it just raises the cap on what I can earn before the 1/3 rule kicks in to replace the 1/2 rule.
LU, read what you posted one more time. Complaining about a 20 yo with 3 kids??? Seriously....??? She did have the right to an abortion, all the way up until the baby was half out of her canal, she chose otherwise. That was not the Republicans, she also had all the access to birth control that she could handle. Condoms are free, and so is the education, at any Planned Parenthood, paid for by us the taxpayer, if we beilieve in it or not. Again, these are decisions that she made on her own, and had nothing to do with GOP. Maybe the Dems, should have forced her into the abortion clinic, lke they do in foreign countries now that Obama has released those funds to the WHO again. Nice try though LU.
Lynn -- "porch bums"??? really??? is that your racist code word?
Don't get me wrong I like Biden, but as a government employee how does he get SS? Government employees don't pay into SS unless he paid in before he took office. So I don't think I get this.
guess you haven't been following the news either t. How many young women are going to go to a Planned Parenthood clinic when their lives are threatened?
Planned parenthood does not do abortions, they just point you in the direction you need...so they would be completely safe going to planned parenthood.
Needless to say, everyone is postulating that "someone" dems, reps, anyone BUT THIS GIRL is responsible for the fact that she is 20 and had 3 kids. Neither side has any role. She had access to everything she needed and she still had 3 kids by the age of 20. That's called careless. Kids know the exact repercussions of what can happen, they just think it won't happen to them. It's not a lack of education or access to protection. She is the only one to blame for her situation, not a political party.
Our deficit thisyear is going to be $1.8 trillion. That's $1,800 billion. Put the $5 billion savings into perspective and it looks almost as meangingless as the $100 million the President challenged his cabinet to produce. These guys just don't get it......
I'm just hoping that they don't show up on Thursday with an empty folder like they did last time.
LU, even if they don't show up with an empty folder you won't like it. You blame the far right for not giving Obama and his merry followers a chance and now you are doing the exact same thing. Shame on you!
I am very very happy to see the Republican party finally joining the rest of the country.
But It's June. The new term started 5 months ago. All they've done since January is play games.
So yes, I'm a little sceptical.
Yeah but LU-404506, you gotta admit it was a nifty cover design and color combination on that booklet. Cool! Our tax dollars at work...
I think it's a real good start with things that can be done - now find more spending cuts to programs that are not vital at this time.
Good for " THE PARTY OF NO"! Not good that it took them all this time to finally get to three letter words. This is not a partician issue, this is a U S problem. All Federal cuts should start with the politicians. For this big mess we find ourselves, they are culpable. It is their job to look out for this country; in this endeavor, they have failed. But atleast the GOP is starting to do something, except being obstructionist. This is indeed good news. I attribute their new found approach to the fact that"ELECTIONS REALLY DO HAVE CONSEQUENCES", and they are finally getting that message. Thank you Mr President, and all those that voted for him, for finally beginning the task of moving this country in a new direction. Where the neocons took us is truly frightning!!!
Well said !!!
Well said indeed. You just used too many words. I'll sum it up for you. GOP bad, everyone else good. Dumb. To blame Rep for the state of our country is the same blindness that got a socialist elected. We did this to ourselves! We ran our country into the ground. A new direction? Really? More borrowed money, more borrowed time. That is "new direction" you can keep. You did however make one good point "elections do have consequences". So does borrowing money we don't have. So does running private businesses that you have NO constitutional right to run. And yet here you are whining about a proposed GOP budget cut. Just a little funny to me. I guess blasting the GOP out weighs actual issues facing this country. Maybe you should consider running for an office yourself.
Now lets just wait and see what the Dems. say about the cuts. This could be interesting.
I'm shocked-it almost sounds like the gop has some kind of an original idea. A little different then the usual trash of newt, cheney and joe plumber. And now rush is changing his tune.....what a waste they all are. I will be glad when the party is finally extinct.
WOW Cantor can think and talk at the same time. Something smells fishy here. You wonder why they did not come out with this before the President is gone over seas? Don't get me wrong i am for tax cuts. Cantor and his buddies he hangs with. Do you think they well let there state fall under there tax cuts? I don't think so. But i can be wrong. I would like to look into ther tax cuts in more depth. The party of NO did something. Odd but funny. What got me they did it without asking Boss Hog Rush. They broke rank when they didn't ask him. I know i am going to get hammered on this. Remember this everyone do not get mad. Laugh at someting today. You well feel so much better.
Save the US a bundle - Put term limits, say 8 years max, on House and 12 years max on th e Senate. This would stem the influence of lobbyists on our politicians and save us taxpayers a bundle by doing so.
Members of Congress receive full benefits after 5 years, so let's make sure that they've included themselves in their plan to eliminate retirement for anyone under 62.
Until we somehow get an INDEPENDENT Compensation Commission, like some states have, to set salaries and benefits for all elected and appointed officials, we will NEVER see any savings in Congressional budgets or executive budgets. Term limits will only limit the influence of the lobbyists, not save us any money in the budgets. We also need to get the retirement benefit revised to a minimum of 20 years of GOVERNMENT service for all elected officials IF we can't get the TWO TERM term limits for all elected officials. The five year rule lets a Senator get full retirement BEFORE they have even completed their first term. A representative does have to get elected and serve 2.5 terms first.
Will be interested in seeing all the cuts they recommend. Already know that middle class and lower class America will be affected most. The very first cut should be for all the perks the politicians get. The funds they are allotted for their staffs, traveling, expenses are out of line and cost us billions every year. Their retirement is absolutely ridiculous. Different departments doing duplicate work or no work at all. Understand it is almost impossible to get a federal worker fired regardless of performance. If they are sincere and productive in what they want to cut, good for them. Hope it is not just more hot air.
How about getting rid of tax credits and pork spending instead of real federal projects like maintain historical sites and encourging other modes of transportation.
I agree Nav. Once a historical site has deteriorated beyond repair, we have lost a big hunk of our history. I know.....I live in an island that has many old Danish buildings that can never be restored, yet can't be torn down because they are HISTORICAL.
"Republicans are suggesting killing a program that pays for building sidewalks, bike paths and crossing guards as part of the Safe Routes to Schools program."
I would rather they keep funding this program and look into ways to cut defense spending.
The Defense Department is already working on that one Minan. Congress needs to be eliminating their own fat and pork, just like other posters have said. THEN they can start looking at programs to eliminate, just as the President has every executive department/agency doing.
because bike paths and sidewalks are absolutely essential right now. Cut it until we have money again (which won't happen until we stop spending). Sidewalks, bike paths, and crossing guards are priveleges not essential to functioning. This is not a time to throw money at priveleges and things that are "nice". Is the average tax payer (or those without a job) running out and spending money on priveleges? I don't know about you, but I'm not. I buy the essentials and save what I can. Government can and should function the same way, right now.
I say keep what is essential to function and get rid of everything else. That includes enormous federal salaries and bike paths. Neither are helping our economy, so get rid of them.
Converting all Congressional retirements to 401(K) programs (including retroactively) rather than defined benefits that they get now would help also. Cutting Congressional pay by 50% would help. Let them live like we do! Many members of Congress get $1m+ pensions when they retire. Not sure how that works, but its wrong.
First of most of these pensions are more like private sector hedge funds and they are very well funded. The taxpayers are not on the hook really unless the fund runs out of money, but that is very unlikely to happen.
http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30631.pdf
Prior to 1984, neither federal civil service workers nor Members of Congress paid taxes to Social Security, nor were they eligible for Social Security benefits.
Members of Congress and other federal employees were instead covered by a separate pension plan called the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). The 1983 amendments to the Social Security Act (P.L. 98-21) required federal employees first hired after 1983 to participate in Social Security. These amendments also required all Members of Congress to participate in Social Security as of January 1, 1984, regardless of when they first entered Congress. Because the CSRS was not designed to coordinate with Social Security, Congress directed the development of a new retirement plan for federal workers. The result was the Federal Employees’ Retirement System Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-335).
Members of Congress first elected in 1984 or later are covered automatically under the Federal Employees’ Retirement System (FERS), unless they decline this coverage. Those who already were in Congress when Social Security coverage went into effect could either remain in CSRS or change their coverage to FERS. Members are now covered under one of four different retirement arrangements:
• Full coverage under both CSRS and Social Security;
• The “CSRS Offset” plan, which includes both CSRS and Social Security, but with CSRS contributions and benefits reduced by Social Security contributions and benefits;
• FERS plus Social Security; or
• Social Security alone.
Congressional pensions, like those of other federal employees, are financed through a combination of employee and employer contributions. All Members pay Social Security payroll taxes equal to 6.2% of the Social Security taxable wage base ($97,500 in 2007). Members covered by FERS also pay 1.3% of full salary to the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund. Members covered by CSRS Offset pay 1.8% of the first $97,500 of salary, and 8.0% of salary above this amount, into the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund.
Under both CSRS and FERS, Members of Congress are eligible for a pension at age 62 if they have completed at least five years of service. Members are eligible for a pension at age 50 if they have completed 20 years of service, or at any age after completing 25 years of service. The amount of the pension depends on years of service and the average of the highest three years of salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member’s retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary. (This is where the cost comes in......If they have had different salaries during their terms of office, they have not paid into the system based on the three highest year's salaries. This is what is bankrupting almost every government retirement system throughout the US....fed, state, and local, along with the 80% of final salary. SS sure doesn't pay out on those ratios of input.)
As of October 1, 2006, 413 retired Members of Congress were receiving federal pensions based fully or in part on their congressional service. Of this number, 290 had retired under CSRS and were receiving an average annual pension of $60,972. A total of 123 Members had retired with service under both CSRS and FERS or with service under FERS only. Their average annual pension was $35,952 in 2006.
Sure, do anything as long as Spencer Pratt and Paris Hilton can keep their tax cuts
The GOP actually had a plan? Of course, the centerpiece is to drop funding that helps kids get to school safely. They can just walk in the street I guess. Hope there's not too much traffic. Couldn't they find some money that was going to retarded people to cut too? How about old people? Surely there is some wasteful plan to help old people that we don't need. This would help us pay for sugar subsidies and other corporate welfare.
Wow, two picks out of 30 something and you are complaining. I walked to school and I lived. Had no sidewalks either. There is this cool spot in the road, with a white colored line to your right, that tells you where you can walk.
In my district, the buses pick the kids up right at the door. Part of my school taxes pays for it. No need to build sidewalks, bike paths, or pay for guards.
So, instead of picking on one item and saying that these people are all evil, why not say that you think the funding for that should stay. I really hate the smell of pigs, so i think the research for pig odor should stay too.
There is always a cause, but at some point we need to realize that not everything can be paid for. So, infrastructure like this should fall onto the communities and states.
I fully agree on the corporate welfare comments, that is about the dumbest thing I have ever been witness to.
I applaud the GOP for saying something other than NO for once.
Oh wait. They are primarily saying NO to the ones that can least afford it. They don't seem to be too big on ending Corporate Welfare, just programs that help the underpriviledged.
I guess thaty can't say anything but NO.
Let's be reasonable. This is all they could find $23/billion over 5 years? Why not a 10% cut across the board. Every department, every level, everything!!!!
I do not work in the government sector, however I can tell you from the past that they are mostly not over paid, but rather have lower salaries than the private sector. To attrack workers they do offer better benefits, but that is all they have going for them. I worked at the court house at one time, and I worked also for the game and fish dept. I quit and went back to private. They run the raises in the newspaper because their wages are public information. The public complains, they promise to cut the wages... and they do, but the increases they cut are the ones for the hourly workers. They get theirs first, the ones in the paper that everyone gets upset about never get touched, but the cuts happens to the "little guy" then to make the public happy. They will not pay overtime, and you are not allowed to work, but they put you on a counter with people who get mad at you because you need a lunch or a potty break and there is no one else to fill in. Or you are locking the door, and being yelled at. At game and fish they would stand in the lobby and let people in after 5 pm, and you had to close up as they can not pay ot.. so the public gets mad at you. IN AZ on smoggy days they sent "non essential" staff home early, but all the people doing the office work had to stay.. yet they are paid the least amount. I agree we have to cut, but the upper income workers need to understand the lower income ones can not be cut any more without living in a tent somplace. They have to give up some income in congress, ceo's etc... they are the ones who got the huge raises in the past while the rest of those people got "cost of living" which never really covered for cost of living. No wonder so many are in debt now days.
FINALLY...the GOP has actual ideas being put on the table. And, they are actually good. These projects can be re-started when the time is right. Only one dispute, ADD congress and our elected officials "perks" and "pension" cuts also. They should also feel what everyone else is feeling. NO RAISES! behind closed doors.
Agreed, except that I take issue with ANY education cuts. The one area that will determine the future prosperity or lack of in America. Seems like education is the first thing to be cut in any financial crisis.
But don't worry kids, just remember we love you.
What the G-nO-P should be doing is apologizing for the mess they got this country into over their 8 years as the ruling party. Now they want to go back to the very principles they abandoned after they lied their way to power in 2000, and they tell us it's what's best for the country. Does anyone else see a certain disconnect here? Their ideas are great as sound bites, but governing effectively is a bit tougher than formulating sound bites, as Newt found out, as Dubya found out, ad nauseum...
And hasn't the Conservative idea of conversation over the past eight years been, "If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists"? Now they're even changing that, if Boss Limbaugh approves, of course.
So you are complaining that the party is changing? You are actually upset that the Republicans are coming to the table with ideas?!?!? They are getting back to principle and you're mad?
This is the same mentality that says once a drug user always a drug user, just kill them and be done because they can never change.
Try encouraging the change for once. Say to them good job, thanks for coming back from the edge there. Here is a pamphlet explaining what has changed over the last 10 years. If you need some help, let us know.